JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2015] EWHC 3263 (Ch) (6 November 2015)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2015] EWHC 3263 (Ch) (6 November 2015)

Variation of the freezing order to permit payments from trust assets for Mr. Pugachev's living and legal expenses is refused due to insufficient evidence of lack of other assets, risk of dissipation, and the application being for the benefit of the defendant. Reduction of the frozen amount is refused as it would have no practical effect for trustees and is not just and convenient.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3263 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev; Defendant: Kea Trust Company Limited; Defendant: Finetree Company Limited; Defendant: Bramerton Company Limited; Defendant: Bluering Company Limited; Defendant: Maru Limited; Defendant: Hapori Limited; Defendant: Miharo Limited; Defendant: Arotau Limited; Defendant: Luxury Consulting Limited; Defendant: Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Freezing Order / Interlocutory
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Variation of Injunctions, Chabra Jurisdiction, Trustee Powers, Living and Legal Expenses, Asset Preservation
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Injunctions Freezing Orders Variation of Injunctions Chabra Jurisdiction Trustee Powers Living and Legal Expenses +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation 'Deposit Insurance Agency'

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Kea Trust Company Limited

Defendant

Finetree Company Limited

Defendant

Bramerton Company Limited

Defendant

Bluering Company Limited

Defendant

Maru Limited

Defendant

Hapori Limited

Defendant

Miharo Limited

Defendant

Arotau Limited

Defendant

Luxury Consulting Limited

Defendant

Victor Sergeyevitch Pugachev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Freezing Order / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees may vary freezing order to permit payments to beneficiaries for living and legal expenses
  2. 2 Whether the amount frozen should be reduced to reflect currency fluctuations
  3. 3 Whether payments to non-defendant beneficiaries should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

Variation of the freezing order to permit payments from trust assets for Mr. Pugachev's living and legal expenses is refused due to insufficient evidence of lack of other assets, risk of dissipation, and the application being for the benefit of the defendant. Reduction of the frozen amount is refused as it would have no practical effect for trustees and is not just and convenient.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • No variation of freezing order to permit payments from trust assets for living or legal expenses of Mr. Pugachev or other beneficiaries.
  • No reduction of frozen amount in WFO1 or WFO2.